UC files appeal against affirmativ action suit

Tuesday, May 7, 1996

ACLU calls motion an attempt by Wilson to delay facing chargesBy
Michael Howerton

Daily Bruin Staff

The Board of Regents and Gov. Pete Wilson further attempted to
squash a lawsuit charging them with unethical behavior in their
vote to end affirmative action.

The university filed an appeal against a court decision which
allowed a case to proceed to trial. The case accused the governor
of lining up the vote prior to last July’s meeting in violation of
the open-meeting act.

Although a judge ruled last month that the suit should proceed,
the council for the University of California now has appealed that
decision ­ repeating their beliefs that the case is completely
without merit.

An appeal of this nature is unusual and very frequently
unsuccessful, acknowledged university council Jeff Blair. After the
case was ruled valid last month, he said this case presented
extraordinary circumstances that would justify the university’s
appeal.

However, attorneys representing UC Santa Barbara Daily Nexus
reporter Tim Molloy, who filed the suit, speculated that the
university’s appeal is only a rouse to avoid answering the charges
of the suit. Wilson and the regents were required to answer the
charges by yesterday, but in light of their appeal, have been
granted an extension until May 20.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Dan Tokaji,
representing Molloy, said last month that the judge’s decision to
allow the suit was "fully consistent with California law." He added
that any attempts to appeal the decision allowing the case to
proceed to trial would be without any legal merit.

"This is a great victory for the public’s right to know," Tokaji
said of the decision to allow the case to proceed to trial. "This
shows that you can’t conduct a secret meeting and get away with
it."

Although Tokaji said he wasn’t surprised by the university’s
attempt to further appeal the decision, he said he was disappointed
by it. He charged that the move was just a delaying tactic.

"We hoped we could proceed and the university would come clean,"
he said. "This is another delay and stone-walling tactic on their
part. They are in a tough position. They either have to admit that
they broke the law or they have to lie and say that they didn’t.
That’s what they are scared of, but it’s just putting off the
inevitable."

The ACLU have to file a response to the appeal by tomorrow.
Tokaji said their response will state that there are no issues that
warrant this appeal and it should not be considered.

The Court of Appeals will review the statements and the case to
determine if an appeal hearing is warranted. If the court decides
to hear the appeal, they will probably set the date for after May
20 when the university and the governor are required to file their
statements.

The suit centers on whether Wilson telephoned regents to line up
votes before their July decision to end affirmative action in
university admissions, contracts and hiring. Molloy filed his suit
against the regents in February, claiming that Wilson had
continually refused his requests to turn over a copy of his phone
records for the week prior to the July meeting.

The suit seeks to overturn the regents’ vote and reinstate
affirmative action. It also seeks to make the governor turn over
his phone records to determine if he had spoken with various
regents before the vote

Blair sought to have Molloy’s suit thrown out in a San Francisco
Superior Court last month, calling the charge without merit and
arguing that the 30-day window for challenging decisions on the
basis of the Bagely-Keene open-meeting act had long since
expired.

Despite Blair’s pleas, Judge William Cahill ruled that the suit
against Wilson and the regents was valid and should proceed to
trial. Even if the 30-day provision had been exceeded, Cahill
ruled, to disallow the case on that technicality would be
antithetical to the intention of the law.

"Basically (the university’s) argument is that the governor can
conduct a secret meeting, violating the open-meeting act, conceal
it for 30 days and get away with it," Tokaji said.

Molloy’s suit against the regents and the governor only
criticizes the manner in which the vote to eliminate affirmative
action was conducted and does not take issue with the decision
itself.

Even though the suit seeks to void the regents’ July vote and
reinstate affirmative action in the university, there is nothing to
prevent the regents from voting to eliminate it again at the next
open meeting.